The characteristic feature of the publicists of the
Novaya Likvidatorskaya Gazeta, namely, hypocrisy goaded on by
impotent malice, has never reached such limits as it has in their articles
concerning the decision of the International
Bureau.[1]

To what lengths they have gone can be seen from the fact that, after
their very first articles on this subject, Huysmans, the Secretary of the
International Socialist Bureau, felt constrained to authorise Comrade Popov
to convey to the Russian workers his protest against the attempts of
Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta to “exploit, in its factional interests,
the lack of information” of the Russian readers, his protest against the
“utter inaccuracy and disloyalty” of the liquidators’ published reports
concerning the Bureau’s decisions.

Since the Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta publicists have received
such a resounding ... testimonial from the Bureau’s Secretary, we can
calmly ignore their attempts to accuse us of distorting the true
character of the decisions passed in London. People who have been publicly
accused by the Secretary of the Bureau of “exploiting” the Bureau’s
decisions “in their factional interests” and of being “disloyal” to
them, may shout as much as they please about their respect for the
International, etc., but scarcely anyone will believe them. Every worker
knows now what name to give the manipulations by which
Mr. D.[2] tries so hard to read into the resolution of the Bureau such
things as “the methods of building” the Party, “condemnation” of the
Six,[3] “rejection” of our “claims” and “recognition” of the
Social-Democratic
character of the Left
wing.[4] Literary juggling with the resolutions of the Bureau is hardly
a sign of respect for those resolutions, Mr. D.!

How great, though, is the confusion of these jugglers! See how they are
forced to contradict themselves at every turn!

1) In No. 102, Mr. D. solemnly stated: “The International Socialist
Bureau censured the six deputies for resigning from the Duma
group. In issue No. 104, another juggler,
Mr. L.S.,[5] no less solemnly declared: “The International Socialist
Bureau handed out neither testimonials nor censure.” And—please
note!—both gentlemen are highly pleased with the Bureau’s decision; one
because it “censured”, and the other because it did not! Can one imagine
a picture of greater confusion?

Indeed, there was good reason for the liquidators’ confusion! The main
point of the Bureau’s resolution states unequivocally the following:
“Any practical step towards unity must be preceded by a preliminary
clarification of existing differences.”

If we do not want to present the working class with a hodgepodge of
miscellaneous elements miscalled “unity”, and if we want real unity of
action, the first obligatory step in this direction must be to
ascertain exactly what the “points of disagreement” are. Let us first
ascertain exactly the “points of disagreement” by means of a “general
exchange of opinion”, and then it will become clear whether it is possible
to talk about any practical steps towards unity. That is how the question
is formulated in the Bureau’s resolution. We whole-heartedly approve of
this formulation. We responded to the proposal of the International
Socialist Bureau by calling upon the workers calmly and thoughtfully to
discuss our disagreements once more, and to express their views on the
points of disagreement. We, for our part, promised to do all we could to
help familiarise our foreign comrades with the existing differences. The
resolution published in Proletarskaya Pravda, No. 9, gives a quite
correct summary of the points on which we and the
liquidators[6] disagree. This is what our reply to the Bureau’s proposal
should be, and of course, there could be no other line of action for those
who have serious
consideration for the Bureau’s decision to promote a “general exchange of
opinion on the points of disagreement”.

But—and this is the whole point—no task is more unpleasant,
undesirable, and unacceptable to the liquidators than that of ascertaining
our main differences on questions of theory, programme, tactics and
organisation. All their subterfuges, distortions and abuse in connection
with the Bureau’s resolution are solely designed to obscure its
demand for a preliminary clarification of differences. Both Mr. L.S. and
Mr. D. run ahead zealously: could we not somehow “unite” without
“certificates” giving the ideological “service record” of those
uniting? Gould we not do without “quotations from old journals and
newspapers”?—Mr. L. S. worries. Could we not stop recalling “the
past”?—Mr. D. pleads. We understand them very well: there is nothing
pleasant for Mr. L. S. in the recollections of articles about the
“underground” (Luch No. 15 [101]), or for Mr. D. in
recollections of the “fight-for-legality” slogan. And we fully endorse
the Bureau’s decision insofar as it proposes that the errors of the past
should not be raked up. We shall not deny the liquidators the amnesty for
the “errors of the past”, for which they plead. The past, as such, does
not interest us; what does interest us is the work of today and
tomorrow. As regards that work, we want to know whether the campaign
against the “underground” conducted in the liquidationist press is to
continue, whether they will continue to argue that the
“three
pillars”[7] are inapplicable at the present time, whether they will
defend the distortion of the programme by the August bloc
people[8] and so forth.

The clarification of these questions and of the degree to which we
differ on them is, according to the Bureau’s resolution, a
precondition to any progress towards unity, if we are not to
accept “unity” in the liquidationist meaning of lumping together, without
regard for principles, all who care to call themselves Social-Democrats.

“The counts of the indictment have already been drawn up,”
Mr. L. S. thunders. We should not like to recall here the story about the
thief who fears his own shadow, but why does Mr. L. S. take ordinary peace
terms to be an “indictment”? We say: the organisation to be created as a
result of unity should be based on such and such principles—acceptance
of the old programme, a definite form of organisation, uncurtailed
slogans,[9] resolute tactics, etc. But you immediately declare that this
formulation of the programme, tactics and tasks of the organisation, is
nothing but a “complete list of liquidators’ sins”. We are sorry for you,
but neither we nor the Bureau know of any method of building new
organisations other than by clarifying their programme, their tactics, and
so forth.

We are guilty of a still more grievous sin, however. Not only have we
proposed the conditions for the creation of an organisation, i. e.,
clarified the terms of peace, but we have, moreover, submitted these terms
to the bar of the workers’ opinion.

We maintain that there is no other way of carrying out the Bureau’s
decision than the one we have chosen.

The Bureau calls upon all those who profess to be
Social-Democrats to clarify their differences as a preliminary step towards
solving the problem of unity.

The resolution we published responded to the Bureau’s appeal by giving
a “list” of views on the basic questions of programme, tactics and
organisation, and by submitting our “list” to the workers, for their
consideration. If the liquidators were to follow our example, we would
have, in the more or less near future, the clearly formulated opinions of
all parties, and a clear idea as to which side has the support of the
majority of the organised workers. The task set before the Russian
proletariat by the International Socialist Bureau would be brought nearer
to fulfilment. But the liquidators, of course, will to the very last shun
this path, for the simple reason that neither a precise formulation of
their political views nor the submission of these views to the bar of the
broad circles of the workers is in the interests of their group.

Under these circumstances they will inevitably strive to substitute for
the definite “clarification of differences” demand ed by the Bureau,
petty personal squabbles, distortions, and wilful misrepresentations, which
can only hamper its work, and they will constantly necessitate those
lessons in “loyalty” which the Secretary of the International has already
been compelled to teach the liquidators.

Notes

[1]The International Socialist Bureau—the Executive of the
Second International, set up in accordance with the decision of the Paris
Congress in 1900. On December 14 (new style), 1913 the I.S.B. resolved to
convene a conference “of all sections of the working-class movement in
Russia” in order to ascertain existing disagreements by means of “a
general exchange of opinions”, with the alleged purpose of restoring unity
in the R.S.D.L.P. This question was raised at a meeting of the I.S.B. on
the initiative of Rosa Luxemburg with the aim of supporting the Russian
liquidators, who had suffered defeat in their struggle against the
Bolsheviks. In connection with this decision of the I.S.B. the
liquidationist Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta published a telegram from
London reporting that the Bolsheviks’ demand that a representative of the
Social-Democratic Labour Party group in the Duma (the Six) should be sent
to the interparliamentary section of the Second International was rejected
at a meeting of the I.S.B. On instructions from Lenin, the representative
of the Central Committee in Brussels asked I.S.B. Secretary Huysmans what
he thought of this liquidationist trick. Huysmans was obliged publicly to
refute this false report of Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta.

[6]Lenin is referring to the “Resolution Concerning the Decision of the
Socialist Bureau”, signed by “a group of organised Marxists”, published
in Proletarskaya Pravda, issue No. 9, December 17, 1913.

[7]The three pillars—a term used in the legal Bolshevik press
and at open, legal meetings to denote the three basic (“uncurtailed”)
revolutionary slogans: a democratic republic; confiscation of all landed
estates; an eight-hour day.

[8]August bloc people—a name applied by Lenin to participants
and adherents of the anti-Party August bloc, organised by Trotsky at the
Conference of the liquidators held in Vienna in August 1912. The Conference
was attended by representatives of the Bund, the Caucasian Regional
Committee, the Social-Democrats of the Lettish Region and the liquidators’
groups resident abroad, namely, the
editorial boards of Golos Sotsial-Demokrata, Trotsky’s Vienna
Pravda and the Vperyod group. Delegates from Russia were
sent by the St. Petersburg and Moscow “sponsor groups” of the liquidators
arid the editorial boards of the liquidationist publications Nasha
Zarya and Nevsky Golos. A representative of the
Spilki Committee Abroad was also present. The overwhelming
majority of delegates were resident abroad and out of touch with the
working class in Russia.

The Conference adopted anti-Party liquidationist decisions on all
questions of Social-Democratic tactics, and declared against the existence
of an illegal Party. Unable to elect a Central Committee, the liquidators
confined themselves to setting up an Organising Committee. The August bloc,
which consisted of ill-assorted elements, began to fall apart at the
Conference itself, and soon broke down completely. (For details about the
August bloc see pp. 158–61 of this volume.)

[9]The term uncurtailed slogans refers to the three basic
revolutionary slogans: a democratic republic, confiscation of all landed
estates, and an eight-hour day.